The judgment establishes the importance of establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing the plaint, emphasizes the distinction between 'non-disclosure' and 'non-filing' of documents, and acknowledges the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the filing of documents.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. The Petitioner and the Respondents, who are the Plaintiff and the Defendants respectively in the original lawsuit [CS(COMM) 2185/2021], are embroiled in a commercial dispute before the Commercial Court Judge at Tis Hazari, Central District, Delhi. The core of the dispute revolves around the Petitioner's plea for legal protection, primarily in the form of an injunction, to prevent the Respondents from engaging in alleged unauthorized use of the Petitioner's trademark "AMAZE" on the ground of passing off.

2. As it stands, the aforementioned suit is currently in the process of adjudication, with the conclusive judgment and the determination of an interlocutory injunction still pending. However, the focus of this present petition is a comprehensive order issued on 02nd August, 2022 passed by Commercial Court Judge [hereinafter "Impugned Order"], dismissing two applications filed by the Petitioner, both seeking leave to introduce additional documents. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner has appealed to this Court's supervisory jurisdiction, asserting that their right to a fair trial has been compromised, by a manifestly erroneous order.

Background of the dispute leading to the commencement of the present legal proceedings

3. The circumstances leading up to the filing of the present petition are succinctly outlined as follows:

3.1. The Petitioner asserts that in July 2018, the Respondents approached the Petitioner seeking permission to utilize the Petitioner's mark, "AMAZE". Upon refusal, the Respondent No. 2 filed an opposition to Petitioner's trademark application for the mark "[IMG]" under number 2424250 under Class 9 dated 06th November, 2012. The Petitioner countered this opposition, disputing the proprietary rights claimed by Respondent No. 2 over the "AMAZE" mark and its variants.

3.2. In April, 2021, Petitioner gained knowledge of Respondents selling batteries under the deceptively similar mark "AMAZE". Petitioner contends that the Respondents' mark, which is structurally and phonetically identical to the Petitioner's, was purportedly adopted with an intent to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner.

3.3. During the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic in June-July 2021, the Petitioner, invoked its common law rights in the "AMAZE" trademark and filed a lawsuit to seek restraining orders against the Respondents from the use of the mark "AMAZE". Due to certain inadvertent circumstances, some of the key documents were excluded. Thus, on 01st September 2021, the Petitioner filed the first application seeking permission to present additional documents [hereinafter "First Application"]. Following this, on 04th January 2022, a second application was made seeking permission to introduce further documents to counter the claims made by the Respondents in their written statement [hereinafter "Second Application"]. Both these applications [collectively, "the Applications"] met strong resistance from the Respondents and were ultimately adjudicated by the Commercial Court Judge through the Impugned Order, leading to their dismissal.

Petitioner's Case

4. Ms. Rajeshwari H., Advocate, presents Petitioner's case as follows:

4.1. Petitioner adopted trademark "AMAZE" in the year 2008 and has been continuously, openly and extensively using the said mark since then. Petitioner discovered that Respondents had started selling batteries under the mark "AMAZE" without any consent/permission from Petitioner, despite denial of a specific request to use the same. As a result, Petitioner filed a commercial suit to restrain them from using the said mark. The suit was filed online in June/July 2021, since counsel were working from home on account of restrictions as per Covid-19 norms/guidelines and moreover, Covid-19 was in the aftermath of its peak. The suit came up for hearing on 08th July, 2021 when the Court directed the Petitioner to file physical paperbook of the suit. The first effective hearing took place on 05th